Campaign Finance: Democracy for Sale

Congress doles out eight billion dollars in tax breaks and incentives to oil companies even as the price of oil rises to record levels and industry profits reach all-time highs. A three hundred million dollar "bridge to nowhere" is appropriated to link an Alaskan island-population fifty persons, with regular ferry service-to the mainland. The capital gains tax is reduced to 15%, assuring multibillionaire brokers and hedge fund managers a lower tax rate than average working folks and causing Warren Buffett, the second wealthiest man in America, to famously observe that his secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does. The Administration scoffs at report after report from the scientific community detailing the catastrophic warming of the global climate caused by the release of millions of tons of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere. Instead it shelves the Kyoto Treaty, orders government scientists to remain mum and sends political hacks to rewrite their findings. Piratical energy brokers manipulate the market to create phantom electrical shortages in California, costing its citizens fifteen billion dollars. The Administration protects the criminals rather than the citizens.


What is going on here? Almost everyone knows the answer. Politicians want big money for their election campaigns, and big-money donors expect something for their contributions. In a myriad of ways large and small the money of special interests stands opposed to the interests of the majority of Americans and the national interest as a whole. All too often in the present system money counts more than votes, both for its own sake and because with enough money politicians feel they can control public opinion and gain the people's votes anyway with a blizzard of campaign advertising. In a fundamental way then, American democracy is for sale.

The recent cases of congressmen Cunningham, Delay and Jefferson and lobbyist Abramoff demonstrate the criminal temptations inherent in the system. But they obscure the actuality that most of the damage is done fully within the law. The idea that a few people with a lot of money should get their interests served at the expense of the many without it makes a mockery of the very word "democracy." The practice spawns incredible waste, both in terms of the counterproductive uses to which government money is applied and to the opportunity cost of it not being applied to things that make sense, be they actually useful projects, the reduction of debt, or back into the pockets of the people themselves. It also wastes enormous amounts of time. Congressmen report spending up to half their time fundraising instead of doing the job they were elected to do: provide constituent service, study issues and prepare legislation. This corrupt system of legalized bribery is intolerable and must be stopped. The solution is public financing of campaigns.

The American people already support the concept. A 2006 poll of 1,000 voters with an error margin of 3.1% conducted by Lake Research Partners found that 74% favored a "voluntary system of publicly financed campaigns," 57% of them "strongly." 10% had no opinion and only 16% were opposed. This support was broad-based, including 80% of Democrats, 65% of Republicans and 78% of independents. The survey found that 82% of respondents felt it would make candidates more likely to win on their ideas rather than their money. 81% said it would make politicians more accountable to the voters. 79% believed it would allow citizens with good ideas to have a chance against the rich and powerful. 79% agreed special interests would not get as many favors.

Several states have already adopted "clean elections." Ten states have a system in place for governor and seven for their legislatures. Two major cities, Albuquerque and Portland, use it for their mayoral races, and Rhode Island requires broadcasters to provide free air time for candidates.

How does a clean election system work? First, a candidate demonstrates viability by gathering a reasonable number of small contributions. The formula to be raised is based on the population of the district or state in question. Upon qualifying, candidates receive equal amounts for the primary. Those who win the primaries get equal amounts for the general election. General election amounts are larger than for primaries. As an example, Connecticut State Senate candidates have to raise $15,000 in contributions of $100 or less. They then get $35,000 for the primary and $85,000 if they win the primary and compete in the general. Keep in mind Connecticut is a small state and these are small districts. Strict accountability must be in place to make sure the funds are actually spent for election purposes. It's pretty much as simple as that.

Several questions usually come up and I'll do my best to answer them. One concerns the "voluntary" nature of such systems. Isn't that a huge loophole? Can't a wealthy person or a person serving wealthy backers spend much more and still get a big advantage? Indeed that can be. But the expenditures can't be limited because the Supreme Court ruled in the 1974 case Buckley v. Valero that mandatory limits on campaign spending were an abridgement of the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and the press. For example, the Presidential campaign funding system we now have was established after the Nixon scandals of 1972 that led to his resignation. Because of the escalating cost of campaigns and the ability of political organizations to raise ever larger amounts, the funds it provides are no longer considered competitive. In 2008 it is expected that both major party candidates will refuse public financing and raise as much as they can privately. This, of course, defeats the purpose of the system. The way to restore the integrity of the system, "matching," is rather ingenious. Suppose a congressional election will be funded at $500,000. One candidate signs on for the clean money process. The other does not, figuring he can raise more. But as soon as he does, the clean money candidate receives a matching supplement from the elections commission. Nobody's ability to buy extra commercials is limited, but nobody gets an advantage by doing so either. Over 80% of Arizona's serving legislators have been elected by clean money under the system, even though it's voluntary. It's become a campaign advantage there for candidates to say they take only "clean" money and aren't beholden to special interests.

Another big question is the cost. Won't the taxpayers be taken to the cleaners by such a plan? Isn't it better just to let the fat cats pony up at no cost to the citizens? Well, actually the price tag is quite modest. Experience in the states having these types of systems figures out to a cost of between $2 and $6 for each voting age resident. In addition, the price of letting the special interests "pay for us" is immense. To cite from two examples I mentioned in the first paragraph, the oil industry contributed a little over $3 million to President Bush's 2000 campaign. They got the aforementioned $8 billion in tax breaks. That's a handsome return on investment of $26,666.66 to one. Not bad, and it goes further. They've also been able to raise the price of oil from $26 a barrel to $98 today. Through their friend in the White House and their allies in Congress they've been able to fight off all attempts at regulation and defeat every effort to assess an excess profits tax on the windfall. Meanwhile the price of gasoline has gone from $1.38 to $3.20 per gallon. That's certainly costing the consumer a lot more than would have been paid in public financing. How much more? The cost of the 2004 presidential election was about $500 million. That's $1.67 for each American citizen. In the other example, Enron and other energy giants spread $4 million around the California legislature to achieve deregulation. With no one guarding the hen house the crooks then robbed Californians of $15 billion. Once criminality was evidenced the perpetrators wound up paying back about 3 cents on the dollar. For a political investment of $4 million they made off with $14.5 billion. Good work if you can get it.

A last question, will this put an end to lobbyists? No, there will still be lobbyists, as there should be. After all, the First Amendment protects the people's right to "petition" their government and there is nothing against their organizing to do so. But the nature of lobbying will change. Their political currency will no longer be money, but votes, as befits a democracy. An organization will have clout because it represents thousands or millions of voters concerned about an issue, not because it has a handful of voters with millions of dollars to dangle.

Taken together with my earlier proposals for redistricting, the adoption of public campaign financing will eliminate hundreds of billions of dollars in government waste at all levels and restore fairness and a strong measure of genuine accountability to the American political system. We deserve a political system we can be proud of instead of one that is unworthy of us, an embarrassment geared to serve the few over the many and the narrow over the national interest. A good first step is the Fair Elections Now Act, co-sponsored in the U.S. Senate by Democrat Richard Durbin of Illinois and Republican Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Check it out. Isn't it time to put an end to the nonsense?